# Text and math versions of textual (non-numeric) footnote symbols

LaTeX generates the traditional textual footnote symbols (LaTeX uses the following sequence: ∗ † ‡ § ¶ ∥ ∗∗ †† ‡‡) as math symbols. Why? And why do all of these symbols have separate textual and math symbols variants?

\documentclass{article}

\renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

\begin{document}

Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} %
Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} %
Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.}

\textasteriskcentered\textdagger\textdaggerdbl\textsection\textparagraph\textbardbl%
\textsuperscript{%
\textasteriskcentered\textdagger\textdaggerdbl\textsection\textparagraph\textbardbl}

$$*\dagger\ddagger\mathsection\mathparagraph\|% ^{*\dagger\ddagger\mathsection\mathparagraph\|}$$

\end{document}


I can see a justification for the separation of * and \textasteriskcentered, but what about the other symbols?

Here two thoughts:

• I suspect this might have to do with spacing. Spacing is important for "*" and "∥" in math, but I do not see why the other symbols cannot simply be textual glyphs: they are normally not used as mathematical symbols.
• Superscript placement in math mode can be variable. Some people will argue that footnote markers should not be used directly within mathematical material, but using math mode symbols means at least that anyone defining footnote-related macros needs to make sure that the vertical placement of these symbols is consistent and appropriate; intuitively it seems this should be easier to do with purely textual definitions, but it's best if someone else fills in the details and gives pros or cons.
• There is a related question/answer on the XeTeX mailing list titled fnsymbol. In the group de.comp.text.tex there even is a definition of \@fnsymbol that uses text or math mode: [fixltx2e + mathpazo] tanks verwirrt?. Jun 20, 2013 at 0:25

The fixltx2e package redefines the footnote symbol sequence to use text versions of the symbols.
• I'm wondering which other symbols are affected in the same way. Now that I'm looking at the LaTeX source, there are also \mathdollar and \mathsterling, which would certainly be unusual in a pure math context, though I can imagine them appearing in an accounting context (unlike some of the doubly-defined footnote marks). Finally, there might be other doubly-defined symbols where the double definition is well-justified. Jun 27, 2013 at 8:04
• And there is the pair (\textdiv,\div), but these don't appear in latex.ltx. Dec 5, 2013 at 17:36